Yet another Islamist atrocity against religious freedom and free speech...

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Simplistic analysis; Islamism (including but not limited to Jihadist terrorism) is defined at least as much by traditional Islamic interpretations as by modern ideological and technological influences. Even modernist Islamists that seek to re-institute the ongoing interpretation of Islamic texts do so within certain (and extremely problematic) theological boundaries.

Simplistic analysis; Islamism (including but not limited to Jihadist terrorism) is defined at least as much by traditional Islamic interpretations as by modern ideological and technological influences. Even modernist Islamists that seek to re-institute the ongoing interpretation of Islamic texts do so within certain (and extremely problematic) theological boundaries.

This seems pretty similar to Christianity as well. I mean, there's no denying the Bible is chalk full of terrible, oppressive ideas. A lot of them used to be enforced and cruel practices have been (and, in some cases like the Lord's Resistance Army and in many more less extreme but ongoing fashions, are) justified by the Bible.

The only solution for Christians was equally problematic boundaries on their Holy text. After all, once one passage is fallible, every passage is. So how is this a problem relating to one religion?

And after all this nonsense about the terrible Islamic regime, there's not much real solution. What's the point of claiming Islamic peoples in the Middle East are terrible, or, rather, doing it in such an extreme fashion (which clearly seems to imply danger for us who believe in or have these freedoms)? They don't give a shit what you or any American says. I guess you can support a war on them, or against all Muslims. But right now, what of indiscriminately pointing out Muslims as a bad people (as the sensationalist title of this thread does)? It only makes life harder for and creates anger against Muslims who live in developed nations, where someone may actually be listening to you, because these are the only people who will buy into (or probably even hear) that idea anyways.

Succinctly put, Islamist all operate on the traditional Islamic assumption that earthly governments must enforce divine laws, which are agreed to encompass much of daily human life and to entail unequal rights and legal obligations on people on the basis of their religion and gender. One of the most consistent of such laws are those which prohibit-and severely punish-apostasy and blasphemy, which has (predictably) been used as a blunt instrument against would-be Islamic reformers and dissident religious movements (not to mention non-Muslim minorities and womens-rights advocates) in the Muslim world. Jihadist differ from other Islamists in that they have a much more expansive interpretation of the Jihad doctrine.

There is a reason that countries with similar colonial histories and economic indicators tend not to have the same issues (and certainly not on this scale) as most religiously observant Muslim countries.

And after all this nonsense about the terrible Islamic regime, there's not much real solution.

1.) Dominant Christian interpretations advocate adherence to (classically defined) political liberalism and basic civil rights as not only compatible with the Christian religion, but a requirement of the faith. In other words, they got over such obstacles a long time ago, and constantly bringing up such a relativistic argument seems more than a little disingenuous to me.

2.) The solution is for Muslims to admit to themselves that they have a fundamental problem with their religion (as popularly interpreted by a huge friggin' percentage of their co-religionists) and to concentrate on reforming their religion rather than accusing people who point out the obvious of 'Islamaphobia'. As citizens of countries which protect religious freedom, Western Muslims are in the best position to formulate and advocate for such reform and have the moral responsibility to do so and not act as apologist and enablers of illiberal Islamic movements. Incidentally, Islamism is an expansionist and universalist ideology, so simply staying out of the affairs of Muslim countries (not that overt intervention is always wise, it usually isn't) would not work, as evidenced by, for example, the efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to impose Islamic restrictions on free speech and religion on other countries.

And after all this nonsense about the terrible Islamic regime, there's not much real solution.

1.) Dominant Christian interpretations advocate adherence to (classically defined) political liberalism and basic civil rights as not only compatible with the Christian religion, but a requirement of the faith. In other words, they got over such obstacles a long time ago, and constantly bringing up such a relativistic argument seems more than a little disingenuous to me.

2.) The solution is for Muslims to admit to themselves that they have a fundamental problem with their religion (as popularly interpreted by a huge friggin' percentage of their co-religionists) and to concentrate on reforming their religion rather than accusing people who point out the obvious of 'Islamaphobia'. As citizens of countries which protect religious freedom, Western Muslims are in the best position to formulate and advocate for such reform and have the moral responsibility to do so and not act as apologist and enablers of illiberal Islamic movements. Incidentally, Islamism is an expansionist and universalist ideology, so simply staying out of the affairs of Muslim countries (not that overt intervention is always wise, it usually isn't) would not work, as evidenced by, for example, the efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to impose Islamic restrictions on free speech and religion on other countries.

I'm just gunna say what far too many Westerners are too cowardly to say, which is that, while problems like these might not be specific to Islam, they seem to be far more prevalent to countries and communities in which Islam is the predominant religion.

Anyone who disagrees has their fucking head in the sand.

*exits thread, ignoring idiotic relativist backlash*

It's certainly more prevalent with Islam right now, but the reason it is less prevalent with Christianity isn't because Christianity is superior. This intolerance is less prevalent because people have been fighting against it for centuries. Countless people have died fighting against Christians so we can actually be free to speak our minds.

"We grow up thinking that﻿ beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are﻿ easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of﻿ a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Without the freedom to blaspheme and satirize religion, you don't have religious freedom OR freedom of speech-period. Without religious freedom (or freedom of conscience for the over-sensitive atheists out there), no other freedom is secure. You can't say you support free speech but wouldn't defend the right to unpopular speech, or that you support religious freedom but not the right to blaspheme/satirize a religion. Also, this was on a Facebook page, not a public street-corner; there's no public nuisense/indecency gray areas in the equation.

I'll always maintain there's a difference between freedom and Trolling, what that difference is is generally a matter of common sense and practical reason.

People can and do satirise and criticise, just as people can and do take offence.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture